Amoco Oil v. LOCAL 99, INTERN. BROTH. OF ELEC., ETC.
| Citation | 536 F. Supp. 1203 |
| Decision Date | 29 March 1982 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 81-0554. |
| Parties | AMOCO OIL COMPANY v. LOCAL 99, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL-CIO, et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Rhode Island |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Thomas J. McAndrew, Daniel K. Kinder, Providence, R. I., for plaintiff.
Arthur J. Flamm, Boston, Mass., Julius Michaelson, Providence, R. I., for defendants.
The plaintiff, Amoco Oil Company hereinafter "Amoco", brings this action against several labor unions and certain union officers for compensatory and punitive damages arising out of a labor dispute. The defendant unions consist of: the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers hereinafter "IBEW"; Local 99 of the IBEW hereinafter "Local 99"; the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada hereinafter "Plumbers"; Steamfitters Union Local 476 affiliated with the Plumbers hereinafter "Local 476"; the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO hereinafter "Carpenters"; the Carpenters District Council hereinafter "District Council"; and the Providence, Rhode Island Building and Construction Trades Council hereinafter "Trades Council". The individual defendants, sued in both their individual and representative capacities, consist of: The Business Manager, the President, the Financial Secretary, and the Recording Secretary of Local 99; the President and the Secretary of the IBEW; the President, the Business Manager, the Financial Secretary/Treasurer, and the Recording Secretary of Local 476; the President and the Secretary of the Plumbers; the President, the Business Manager, and the Secretary of the District Council; the Business Manager, the President, and the Secretary of the Carpenters; and the President, the past President, and the Secretary of the Trades Council.1
Amoco alleges that the local unions and their individual members have violated both state and federal law by engaging in secondary picketing against it in order to induce it to cease dealing with certain other employers. Amoco further alleges that the international unions and their individual officers have similarly violated state and federal law by instigating, approving, or encouraging the conduct of their local affiliates. Amoco claims that it is entitled to relief under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3)2, the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 158(b)(4)(B)3, 185(a)4, 1875, and federal common law. Furthermore, Amoco seeks relief under various pendent state law claims for tortious interference with business relationships, destruction of property, and trespass. The Court now has before it several motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction, and for failure to state a claim.6 In addition, the local unions and their individual members have also moved to strike portions of Amoco's complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f).
In its complaint, Amoco alleges that in August 1980 it entered contracts with Dexter Electrical Company hereinafter "Dexter" and Web Construction Company hereinafter "Web"7. Web agreed to construct a loading ramp and "vapor system" for Amoco at Amoco's terminal in East Providence, Rhode Island. Dexter agreed to perform electrical work in connection with this construction. Dexter and Web, which both began work at the terminal about August 8, 1980, are non-union employers.
Amoco alleges that Local 99, displeased about Amoco's hiring non-union contractors, attempted to induce a walkout by Amoco's own employees, who are represented by Local 8-366 of the Oil, Chemical, and Atomic Workers' International Union, in protest of Amoco's hiring decisions. Amoco further alleges that on August 26, 1980 Local 99 began to picket the main entrance to Amoco's terminal, through which Dexter and Web employees entered. The picketers carried placards stating that Dexter "does not hire union electricians." Amoco alleges that Local 99 picketers were present at the entrance 24 hours a day although it notified Local 99 that Dexter employees used the entrance only from 7:00 a. m. to 5:00 p. m. Monday through Friday.
On August 27, 1980 Local 99's activities allegedly became more disruptive. Amoco states that the number of picketers increased, and that they threatened physical violence against Dexter, Amoco and Web employees who entered the terminal. Furthermore, the picketers committed such "acts... as strewing nails across the entrances to the job site, slicing tires, breaking windows, throwing rocks at persons and vehicles, and trespassing." They informed Amoco that they were picketing "because Amoco had hired non-union contractors and that they would continue picketing until Amoco learned to hire only union contractors."
At this point Amoco established a separate gate for Dexter and notified the picketers of this fact. Despite reservation of a separate gate for Dexter, however, Amoco alleges that Local 99 continued to picket the "neutral gate" used only by Web and Amoco employees.
On August 27, 1980 Amoco notified IBEW of Local 99's conduct and informed IBEW of Amoco's intention to file a court action. Finally, Amoco alleges that, "as a result of the ... conduct of IBEW ... and Local 99..., Amoco's employees ... were threatened, coerced and restrained from performing their normal tasks of employment."
Amoco's allegations as to Local 476 and the District Council are similar to Amoco's accusations against Local 99. On September 10, 1980 Local 476 began picketing the "neutral" employer gate. The placards carried by Local 476 picketers stated that Web "does not hire union workers." Thus, Amoco established a separate gate for Web and gave Local 476 notice of this. Like Local 99, Local 476 allegedly ignored the existence of the reserved entrance for Web and continued to picket the neutral gate. Furthermore, members of Local 476 allegedly trespassed upon Amoco's property several times and committed acts of violence and vandalism. Amoco contends that such violence was intended to induce Amoco's own employees not to report to work.
On September 11, 1980, the defendant District Council allegedly began picketing Amoco's neutral gate, despite the existence of clearly marked primary and secondary employer entrances. The members of the District Council carried placards highlighting the dispute between the Council and Web. Amoco alleges that a representative of the District Council informed Amoco that "the purpose of the picket line was to block access into and out of Amoco's plant." In addition, like Locals 99 and 476, members of the District Council allegedly entered upon Amoco's property, committing acts of violence and vandalism intended to induce Amoco's employees to breach their collective bargaining agreement with Amoco. Finally, Amoco states that it sent notice to both the Plumbers and Carpenters in Washington informing them about the conduct of their local affiliates and about Amoco's intention to sue in federal court.
Amoco's remaining allegations concern the Trades Council. The President of the Trades Council allegedly threatened Amoco that "he had seventeen ... unions in the ... Council and that as soon as the NLRB ... secured an injunction against one member union..., the enjoined union would simply be replaced by another...." Finally, the Trades Council allegedly threatened another Providence oil company that problems similar to Amoco's would befall it if it hired non-union contractors.
The officers of the IBEW, Plumbers and Carpenters, who are sued in both their individual and representative capacities, have moved pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2) to dismiss the claims against them for lack of personal jurisdiction. Amoco claims that these individuals instigated, approved, or encouraged the conduct of the local unions, thereby subjecting themselves to the jurisdiction of this Court. The individuals, however, have each filed sworn affidavits stating that they were unaware of the picketing against Amoco and did not approve, encourage or instigate such conduct. They aver that they never received personal notice of the telegrams that Amoco sent to the IBEW, Carpenters and Plumbers informing them of the locals conduct. Furthermore, these affidavits uniformly state that the individuals do not reside in Rhode Island or have their principal place of business there. Except for the President and Secretary of the IBEW, each individual avers that he has not been in Rhode Island within at least the last two years.
Amoco has submitted only one affidavit in response to those of the defendants. In this affidavit, one of Amoco's attorneys states that he unsuccessfully attempted to contact the Business Manager of Local 99 on several occasions between August 26 and September 19, 1980. Amoco's attorney avers that on each occasion representatives of Local 99 informed him that the Business Manager was unavailable "because he was meeting with representatives of the IBEW ... in Washington, D.C." Affidavit of Andrew J. Schaffran, at 2 (Nov. 24, 1981).
Viewing all the affidavits submitted8 in the light most favorable to Amoco, the Court finds that the individual defendants are entitled to dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction. Their affidavits, the accuracy of which Amoco has not cast into genuine doubt9, seem to establish the absence of "minimum contacts" with the state of Rhode Island that federal due process requires for the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a party. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 291, 100 S.Ct. 559, 564, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980). These affidavits indicate that "the defendants' conduct and connection with the forum State are not such that they should reasonably anticipate being haled into court here." Id. at 297, 100 S.Ct. at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Intercity Maintenance v. Local 254 Serv. Employees
...442 U.S. 42, 52, 99 S.Ct. 2121, 60 L.Ed.2d 698 (1979); Morton, 377 U.S. at 260-61, 84 S.Ct. 1253; Amoco Oil Co. v. Local 99, Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 536 F.Supp. 1203, 1224 (D.R.I.1982). As the LMRA makes clear, plaintiff's recovery for unlawful secondary pressure is limited to compensa......
-
Violet v. Picillo, Civ. A. No. 83-0787 P.
...and by the state. Viewing these materials in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see, e.g., Amoco Oil v. Local 99, Intern. Broth. of Elec., Etc. 536 F.Supp. 1203, 1209-10 (D.R.I.1982), whose burden it is to make at least a prima facie showing of jurisdiction, see, e.g., North America......
-
Schnabel v. BLDG. & CONST. TRADES COUNCIL OF PHILA.
...or (2) a class of persons who have been the victims of historically pervasive discrimination. See Amoco Oil v. Local 99, 536 F.Supp. 1203, 1213-14 n. 20 (D.R.I.1982). This approach is at least suggested by several cases applying Carchman. See Banghart v. Sun Oil Co., 542 F.Supp. 451 (E.D. P......
-
Cayuga Indian Nation of New York v. Cuomo
...supra (FWPCA and Marine Protection and Sanctuaries Act preempt common law nuisance remedies); Amoco Oil Co. v. Local 99, Int'l Bro. of Elec. Wkrs., 536 F.Supp. 1203 (D.R. I.1982) (NLRA preempts common law remedies for tortious interference with a labor contract); United States v. Kin-Buc, I......